Thank you! I like to use that kind of framework as much as possible. I like to start by thinking of what all makes the POI valid, and then try to work it all into the description. I’ll also make the supplemental info somewhat of an abbreviated version that mentions the exact criteria. I think this example would be something you come across a lot in the UK.
I would caution against having someone smiling at the camera like that in the supporting photo for future reference. It could be rejected for “submitter identifiable”
1 Like
I was at a soccer tournament and it was a struggle to get a primary pic with no people, plus my wife was getting annoyed at me for taking forever anytime I got sent to the car for something one of the kids needed; so I was in a bit of a rush. I just kept my fingers crossed that people would vote correctly if Emily didn’t grab it. I usually do horizontal pics as well but I had to do a bunch of verticals on that trip just trying to avoid people. There ended up being a bunch of fields I couldn’t get just because of how crowded the place was.
1 Like
In cases like that, I’ve added an obvious edit to mask the identity if the person. One time, i placed an emoji-like smiley face over their head. Then i mention in the supplemental the situation about it being a busy tournament and how i couldnt show the surrounding area without showing people.
1 Like
That is a good idea, and I’m sure I can have a little fun with that. Weirdly, of all the bad rejections I’ve had I think I’ve had one for people in the supplemental pic yet. 
They usually seem to use PRP, no safe access, or blurry photo; among a few other untrue reasons that make no sense for the nominations.